We Must Heed the Vital Message of 1 Corinthians 10:18-20

1 Corinthians 10:18-20 provides vital instruction that every believer must heed:

1 Corinthians 10:18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? 19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? 20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.

To eat in a worship context of what has been sacrificed on an altar to an idol is to be a partaker of the altar. To do so is also to have fellowship with demons!

Such fellowship with demons is not contingent upon a person's having to offer the sacrifices himself. Anyone who eats of such sacrifices comes into fellowship with demons.

The passage also does not provide any basis to say or to hold that this only happens sometimes--in a worship context, anyone who eats what has been sacrificed to an idol has fellowship with demons. God does not want any humans to have fellowship with demons!

36846 reads
Bert Perry's picture

A hint for you, Rajesh; if you want to prove that you don't divert every discussion goes to rock & roll, and that you understand the basic rules of exegesis, you demonstrate that by (a) not diverting every discussion to be an attack on rock & roll and (b) using the basic rules of exegesis, starting with actually taking a look at the links I provided and realizing that my mention of Strong's # is a reference to help others look it up.

Step #2 in proving you understand basic rules of exegesis is to compare what I wrote with your source, and realize they're saying the same thing, and that neither source lends itself to the notion that the "play" was about music, and that even if it did, it certainly doesn't refer to music that was invented in African-American churches 32 centuries later.

(never mind that your "it's associated with idolatry" argument is a standard guilt by association fallacy that could be used to impugn any genre)

Step #3 in proving your good faith in argument is to stop the passive-aggressive nonsense about not referring to your rhetorical opponents in the third person.  That's what I expect of junior high girls having a spat, not adults claiming a terminal degree.  

Really, if I were your thesis advisor from BJU, I'd be campaigning to get your degrees revoked for malpractice.  It's that bad, Rajesh, when you try to shoehorn your ideas into the Scripture like this.  

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

GregH's picture

To Rajesh: I have sympathy for you. You have worked hard but have taken a lot of hits here. It is not going to get any better either unless you do some serious self reflection. You think everyone else is the problem, but I am reminded of something I heard a wise pastor say one time: if you are the only one that has "figured something out," you are likely off the plantation. 

To everyone else: Unless you find Rajesh entertaining (which I would definitely understand), the best way to get this to stop is stop engaging. As you probably have noticed, he posts periodically just to keep the thread visible. He appears to be trying to bait people into engagement. If that tactic failed, he would give up eventually.

RajeshG's picture

GregH wrote:

To Rajesh: I have sympathy for you. You have worked hard but have taken a lot of hits here. It is not going to get any better either unless you do some serious self reflection. You think everyone else is the problem, but I am reminded of something I heard a wise pastor say one time: if you are the only one that has "figured something out," you are likely off the plantation. 

To everyone else: Unless you find Rajesh entertaining (which I would definitely understand), the best way to get this to stop is stop engaging. As you probably have noticed, he posts periodically just to keep the thread visible. He appears to be trying to bait people into engagement. If that tactic failed, he would give up eventually.

No sympathy needed. You are wrong again in your assertion that I am trying to bait people into engagement. My latest comment confronted a false statement that I noted earlier but chose not to deal with then. The egregious nature of that comment and the previous history of the one making the comment merited a careful response, which I now have made.

RajeshG's picture

Not only did the writer of the following comment falsely assert that I had not even looked up the Hebrew verb rendered as "play" in Exodus 32:6, but also he made another false assertion about what I should be ashamed about:

Bert Perry wrote:

Shame on you as well for ignoring the clear implications of 1 Cor. 10:25-27, and its permission for early believers to "touch the unclean thing" by eating anything sold in the meat market (almost all of it would have been temple sacrifices) without raising questions of conscience.  In other words, the radical separation based on built by association is simply rejected in Scripture. [underlining added to the original]

To understand why this is another false assertion, it is important to note what the subject of the following verses is:

1 Corinthians 10:25 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake: 26 For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof. 27 If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.

The subject under discussion is not something that the idolaters created or produced under demonic influence--the subject is foodstuffs created by God that in many cases (but not necessarily all) had been previously offered to idols and then either sold as foodstuff in the market place or consumed as food in some other non-worship context.

Furthermore, as noted in the previous paragraph, the subject of this use of these foodstuffs is not in subsequent worship that is acceptable to God but in the use of those foodstuffs as food.

This passage does not have anything to do with manmade combinations of musical elements that were made under demonic influence and then supposedly later deemed to be acceptable for use by believers in divine worship. The false equivalency that is implicitly asserted in this comment between meat created by God and music created by demonically influenced idolaters is a mishandling of this passage.

Concerning the use in acceptable worship of music created by demonically influenced people, there are no "clear implications of 1 Cor. 10:25-27 . . ." that support what this writer has falsely claimed that I should be ashamed of having ignored.

 

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

1 Corinthians 10:25 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake: 26 For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof. 27 If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.

The subject under discussion is not something that the idolaters created or produced under demonic influence--the subject is foodstuffs created by God that in many cases (but not necessarily all) had been previously offered to idols and then either sold as foodstuff in the market place or consumed as food in some other non-worship context.

Furthermore, as noted in the previous paragraph, the subject of this use of these foodstuffs is not in subsequent worship that is acceptable to God but in the use of those foodstuffs as food.

The subject may not be about something produced by those under demonic influence, but isn't the subject about WHEN the demonic influence gets applied to a person due to eating idol meat? Wouldn't it be true that if a person KNOWS they are eating meat offered to idols, and they eat it anyway, then that person would be under demonic influence? Yet another Christian could eat that same meat, and if they do not know it has been offered to idols, then they would NOT be under demonic influence. So what is the difference between the two Christians? It's not the eating of the food itself. They are both eating meat that's been offered to idols. The difference is in the knowledge of idolatry associated with the meat. God is not displeased with the person using the meat as food if the person does not know about the idolatry.

To make an analogy then with music - If I do not know that some "manmade combinations of musical elements" is associated with idolatry, then God would not be displeased with me using said  "manmade combinations of musical elements." The Bible doesn't give us the origins of "manmade combinations of musical elements," so we're just speculating about any origin of some particular style or beat or whatever. We simply can't know with certainty. Some combinations can be used by idolaters, just as meat can be used by idolaters. The use of meat by idolaters does not make all use of meat bad. It doesn't even make the idol meat itself bad if the person eating it has no knowledge that it's idol meat. Certainly music isn't bad just because it is performed by idolaters. Even music produced by demonically influenced people wouldn't be bad for my use if I don't know that it's been produced by a demonically influenced person.

JD Miller's picture

Kevin wrote,

To make an analogy then with music - If I do not know that some "manmade combinations of musical elements" is associated with idolatry, then God would not be displeased with me using said  "manmade combinations of musical elements." The Bible doesn't give us the origins of "manmade combinations of musical elements," so we're just speculating about any origin of some particular style or beat or whatever. We simply can't know with certainty. Some combinations can be used by idolaters, just as meat can be used by idolaters. The use of meat by idolaters does not make all use of meat bad. It doesn't even make the idol meat itself bad if the person eating it has no knowledge that it's idol meat. Certainly music isn't bad just because it is performed by idolaters. Even music produced by demonically influenced people wouldn't be bad for my use if I don't know that it's been produced by a demonically influenced person.

But Kevin, now you know because Rajesh told you so.  The problem I have is that Rajesh is not my authority, so I question his conclusions.   Back to an earlier comment I made, if a specific artist said his music is demonic/satanic, I will avoid it regardless of the style of music.  If I go into Walmart and buy meat and Rajesh comes on this forum and tells me that Walmart sells meat offered to idols, I will not stop eating Walmart meat.  Even if some TV preacher says that Walmart is offering meat offered to idols and it makes national headlines, but Walmart denies it, I will still keep eating Walmart meat unless the TV preacher can give me footage of Walmart admitting the meat is offered to idols.  Rajesh seems to think he has given proof, but he has not convinced many of us; therefore we are going around in circles with him saying his vague statements are proof and us saying we see no correlation.

pvawter's picture

JD Miller wrote:

But Kevin, now you know because Rajesh told you so.  The problem I have is that Rajesh is not my authority, so I question his conclusions.   Back to an earlier comment I made, if a specific artist said his music is demonic/satanic, I will avoid it regardless of the style of music.  If I go into Walmart and buy meat and Rajesh comes on this forum and tells me that Walmart sells meat offered to idols, I will not stop eating Walmart meat.  Even if some TV preacher says that Walmart is offering meat offered to idols and it makes national headlines, but Walmart denies it, I will still keep eating Walmart meat unless the TV preacher can give me footage of Walmart admitting the meat is offered to idols.  Rajesh seems to think he has given proof, but he has not convinced many of us; therefore we are going around in circles with him saying his vague statements are proof and us saying we see no correlation.

Indeed. Getting rid of all my Kiss worship albums as we speak. Smile

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

Even music produced by demonically influenced people wouldn't be bad for my use if I don't know that it's been produced by a demonically influenced person.

Your analysis does not account for the key difference--the meat was created by God; the music is not. We know the meat is intrinsically good.

Furthermore, the issue is not whether you know or not concerning the music--the issue is whether the music is acceptable to God or not. Music made by demonically controlled idolaters is wicked music that is not acceptable to God. God commands that His people have no fellowship with such unfruitful works of darkness.

God rejects the worship of anyone who offers anything that is not acceptable to Him--whether they know it is not acceptable to Him or not.

RajeshG's picture

JD Miller wrote:

Kevin wrote,

To make an analogy then with music - If I do not know that some "manmade combinations of musical elements" is associated with idolatry, then God would not be displeased with me using said  "manmade combinations of musical elements." The Bible doesn't give us the origins of "manmade combinations of musical elements," so we're just speculating about any origin of some particular style or beat or whatever. We simply can't know with certainty. Some combinations can be used by idolaters, just as meat can be used by idolaters. The use of meat by idolaters does not make all use of meat bad. It doesn't even make the idol meat itself bad if the person eating it has no knowledge that it's idol meat. Certainly music isn't bad just because it is performed by idolaters. Even music produced by demonically influenced people wouldn't be bad for my use if I don't know that it's been produced by a demonically influenced person.

But Kevin, now you know because Rajesh told you so.  The problem I have is that Rajesh is not my authority, so I question his conclusions.   Back to an earlier comment I made, if a specific artist said his music is demonic/satanic, I will avoid it regardless of the style of music.  If I go into Walmart and buy meat and Rajesh comes on this forum and tells me that Walmart sells meat offered to idols, I will not stop eating Walmart meat.  Even if some TV preacher says that Walmart is offering meat offered to idols and it makes national headlines, but Walmart denies it, I will still keep eating Walmart meat unless the TV preacher can give me footage of Walmart admitting the meat is offered to idols.  Rajesh seems to think he has given proof, but he has not convinced many of us; therefore we are going around in circles with him saying his vague statements are proof and us saying we see no correlation.

If what the Bible provides is not sufficient for us to know what is acceptable to God or not in worship, then the Bible is not sufficient, and its claim to be sufficient is false.

You apparently hold that there cannot be any entire "genres"/"styles" (or whatever other non-biblical term you want to use) that are not acceptable to God. The Bible does not provide any basis for holding such a view. Why then do you hold such a view? How do you know that view is correct?

If you do not hold that view, how are you going to decide what the right evidence would be for you to hold that one or more entire "genres"/"styles" are unacceptable to God and how do you know that your understanding of what is the right evidence is correct? 

Bert Perry's picture

You can eat meat that actually is sacrificed to idols without questions of conscience, but if a music style has a plausible connection with idolatry, even if the piece itself is head to toe done by believing Christians, it's probably infected by demons or something.

Why you bother teaching a variant of the same instrument Gene Simmons, Angus Young, and Frank Zappa play (played) is beyond me, as obviously it's tainted, and while God invented the wood and metal of which a guitar is made in the same way he gave us sound and other tools for music, it obviously does not fall under the "eat anything sold in the market without raising questions of conscience."  According.To.Your.Own.Argument.

Sorry, Rajesh, but your interpretation of 1 Cor. 10:25-27 suffers from the same horrendous flaws in exegesis as all your other attempts that I've seen.  If you're going to apply the earlier parts of the passage to music (without any real authorization or justification, I might add), then you need to apply the latter parts as well.  As I've noted repeatedly before, the blanket use of a guilt by association argument simply has no justification in Scripture.  When the Bible says in, but not of, it does not mean that we need to eliminate every thing tangentially connected with idolatry.  It means we need to eliminate the idolatry itself.

Moreover, there are other huge problems with your eisegesis, starting with the fact that you are training believers in Christ to use horrendously bad logic.  This is a direct assault on the first fundamental, and weakens mens' faith in Scripture.  Going on, what you're doing is to do exactly what the Pharisees and Judiazers did; place a demand on believers, to avoid pretty much all modern music, that is nowhere found in Scripture.  In fact, there is Scripture out there--specifically in the final two Psalms--which suggests that at least at times, the music God commanded Israel to use was closer to rock & roll than to modern fundagelical music, which all too often seems to be afraid of a beat.  

In other words, the terms for what you're doing, Rajesh, are "bad logic", "legalism", and "arguing against Scripture."  You need to repent.  

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

RajeshG's picture

Bert Perry wrote:

In fact, there is Scripture out there--specifically in the final two Psalms--which suggests that at least at times, the music God commanded Israel to use was closer to rock & roll than to modern fundagelical music, which all too often seems to be afraid of a beat.  

Implying that Scripture supports the use of rock music in worship by citing the last two Psalms is a fallacious argument that has no merit. The notion that simply because the use of percussion instruments was commanded in the contexts of those Psalms, the sound of that music was similar to rock music has zero Bible to support it.

There is zero biblical evidence that the divinely approved ancient Hebrew music spoken of in those Psalms sounded anything like rock music. 

JD Miller's picture

Rajesh, I actually agree with this statement of yours

There is zero biblical evidence that the divinely approved ancient Hebrew music spoken of in those Psalms sounded anything like rock music. 

There is also zero biblical evidence that the golden calf music sounded anything like rock music.  

RajeshG's picture

JD Miller wrote:

Rajesh, I actually agree with this statement of yours

There is zero biblical evidence that the divinely approved ancient Hebrew music spoken of in those Psalms sounded anything like rock music. 

There is also zero biblical evidence that the golden calf music sounded anything like rock music.  

How is your last statement relevant to anything that I have said? 

RajeshG's picture

Bert Perry wrote:

Why you bother teaching a variant of the same instrument Gene Simmons, Angus Young, and Frank Zappa play (played) is beyond me, as obviously it's tainted, and while God invented the wood and metal of which a guitar is made in the same way he gave us sound and other tools for music, it obviously does not fall under the "eat anything sold in the market without raising questions of conscience."  According.To.Your.Own.Argument.

This faulty comment wrongly asserts that if one holds that musical genres/styles are tainted when they have been created by wicked people for wicked purposes in connection with ungodly activities that put them in contact with demons, then one must also hold that a musical instrument (the classical guitar) that was not created in any such known manner and was not created by any of these men (Simmons, Young, Zappa) and existed long before any of these men were even born must yet be treated as "tainted" because these men have played their vile music on a different but related instrument (the electric guitar).

Furthermore, a careful handling of biblical revelation also shows that the remarks in this comment are faulty because musical instruments are not to be regarded in the same way as musical genres/styles are: https://apeopleforhisname.org/2013/12/on-jubal-david-and-the-ccm-debate/
 

RajeshG's picture

Bert Perry wrote:

Going on, what you're doing is to do exactly what the Pharisees and Judiazers did; place a demand on believers, to avoid pretty much all modern music, that is nowhere found in Scripture. 

This remark in effect asserts that what I am doing is "exactly" what the Pharisees and the Judaizers--who were known unbelievers who had wicked motives and intentionally misled people--did.

By making this false comparison between me and known unbelievers who had wicked motives, this comment at least implicitly attributes ungodly motives to me--which is a categorically false assertion.

Furthermore, this comment falsely asserts that I am placing "a demand on believers, to avoid pretty much all modern music." I have never made any such demands and do not hold such a position.

RajeshG's picture

Bert Perry wrote:

As I've noted repeatedly before, the blanket use of a guilt by association argument simply has no justification in Scripture.   

Merely claiming "the blanket use of a guilt by association argument" does not establish the validity of any such claims, regardless of how many times they are repeated. Linking to Wikipedia articles about logical fallacies does not validate the assertion that faulty logic has been used in specific instances.

Claiming that there is "no justification in Scripture" for what you deem to be a "guilt-by-association" argument does not make it so.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

 

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

Even music produced by demonically influenced people wouldn't be bad for my use if I don't know that it's been produced by a demonically influenced person.

 

 

Your analysis does not account for the key difference--the meat was created by God; the music is not. We know the meat is intrinsically good.

Yes, that is a difference, but I don't think that difference has any bearing on my point. Yes, the meat is intrinsically good, but wasn't this knowledge present in the believers who were eating the idol meat in the idol's temple? They thought that because the meat was intrinsically good, they could eat it anywhere, but Paul told them that they were getting in fellowship with demons, even though the meat was intrinsically good. God was not pleased with their eating of the meat in the temple, even though the meat was created by God and was intrinsically good, and they would suffer spiritual harm by eating it in the temple.

However, if a believer's neighbor brought a sacrifice to the temple, offered it to an idol, even ate of the meat themselves, then brought it home and served it to the visiting believer, that believer could eat of the meat without asking any questions and suffer no spiritual harm. God would certainly be displeased with the neighbor's sacrifice, and the neighbor would be under the influence of demons, but the believer would have a clear conscience. WHY? Because the believer would not have knowledge of the demon connection. This is why I said "The difference is in the knowledge of idolatry associated with the meat." It doesn't matter that the meat is intrinsically good if it causes demonic influence when eaten in the idol's temple. It doesn't matter if the neighbor is demonically influenced when producing the meal, since no spiritual harm comes to the believer if the believer doesn't know the meat has been offered to an idol. 

If this principle applies to meat, in spite of any intrinsic or non-intrinsic factor, then I don't see why it wouldn't also apply to music, in spite of any intrinsic or non-intrinsic factors. Is music exempt from God's principles? The principle here is that God doesn't lay His displeasure down upon the believer if the believer doesn't know about any idolatrous/demonic connection.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

Yes, that is a difference, but I don't think that difference has any bearing on my point. Yes, the meat is intrinsically good, but wasn't this knowledge present in the believers who were eating the idol meat in the idol's temple? They thought that because the meat was intrinsically good, they could eat it anywhere, but Paul told them that they were getting in fellowship with demons, even though the meat was intrinsically good. God was not pleased with their eating of the meat in the temple, even though the meat was created by God and was intrinsically good, and they would suffer spiritual harm by eating it in the temple.

No, the issue was not just the location of their eating it. Nor was it just that God was not pleased. When they would eat in a worship context what has been sacrificed to an idol in a worship context, they come into fellowship with demons. The meat does not change from what it was prior to its being sacrificed. 

Kevin Miller wrote:

However, if a believer's neighbor brought a sacrifice to the temple, offered it to an idol, even ate of the meat themselves, then brought it home and served it to the visiting believer, that believer could eat of the meat without asking any questions and suffer no spiritual harm. God would certainly be displeased with the neighbor's sacrifice, and the neighbor would be under the influence of demons, but the believer would have a clear conscience. WHY? Because the believer would not have knowledge of the demon connection. This is why I said "The difference is in the knowledge of idolatry associated with the meat." It doesn't matter that the meat is intrinsically good if it causes demonic influence when eaten in the idol's temple. It doesn't matter if the neighbor is demonically influenced when producing the meal, since no spiritual harm comes to the believer if the believer doesn't know the meat has been offered to an idol. 

No, the passage does not teach that the neighbor who prepares it simply as food or eats it simply as food in his home comes into fellowship with demons. Nor does it teach that the meat in and of itself causes the demonic influence.

Kevin Miller wrote:

If this principle applies to meat, in spite of any intrinsic or non-intrinsic factor, then I don't see why it wouldn't also apply to music, in spite of any intrinsic or non-intrinsic factors. Is music exempt from God's principles? The principle here is that God doesn't lay His displeasure down upon the believer if the believer doesn't know about any idolatrous/demonic connection.

You have not analyzed the passage correctly. The issue is not just God's displeasure, which is something in addition to the demonic influence. As I said before, you cannot legitimately claim the same thing for something that is intrinsically good that was created by God and something that is not intrinsically good and created by humans.

RajeshG's picture

Through carefully skimming all 23 pages of this thread, it has become clear to me that at least one person has been attacking me based on the fallacious use of a straw man. Note what I have highlighted in bold in the comment below:

Bert Perry wrote:

Step #2 in proving you understand basic rules of exegesis is to compare what I wrote with your source, and realize they're saying the same thing, and that neither source lends itself to the notion that the "play" was about music, and that even if it did, it certainly doesn't refer to music that was invented in African-American churches 32 centuries later.

(never mind that your "it's associated with idolatry" argument is a standard guilt by association fallacy that could be used to impugn any genre)

In this fallacious comment, the straw man is implicitly set up that I supposedly have asserted that because the meaning of the word "play" refers to the music in Exodus 32, it also "refer[s] to the music that was invented in African-American churches 32 centuries later."

Having  carefully skimmed today everything that I have said in this thread in all 23 pages, I have verified that I have not made a single comment that asserts anything of this sort.

What I have said is that a careful analysis of the GCI proves the reality of demonically influenced music. I have also provided evidence that supports rejecting rock music as demonically influenced music.

I have not, however, asserted that the meaning of the word "play" in Exodus 32 refers to rock music or any other music of today.

This is therefore a blatant instance of misrepresenting me by implicitly erecting a straw man by implying that I have associated what occurred in the GCI directly with music 32 centuries later through my supposedly claiming that the word "play" in Exodus 32 somehow connects to or applies to not just the music in Exodus 32 but also to music that was 32 centuries later.

Anyone who resorts to this kind of fallacious assertion by attacking a straw man that implicitly asserts something that I have not said will give an account to Christ someday for doing so.

RajeshG's picture

JD Miller wrote:

There is also zero biblical evidence that the golden calf music sounded anything like rock music.  

JD,

Today, I carefully skimmed everything that I have said in this thread in all 23 pages. I have not said anything that amounts to a claim that there is biblical evidence that the golden calf music sounded like rock music.

Apparently, you somehow have come to think that I hold this view and that I have asserted this notion--both of which are false.

What I have done is to analyze the music of the GCI based on the biblical data provided about its composite sound in comparison with other relevant Scripture, including Neh. 12.

Regardless of how you have come to hold this erroneous perspective about what I believe and have said, it is important that you correct your wrong understanding of what I believe and of what I have said.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

 

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

Yes, that is a difference, but I don't think that difference has any bearing on my point. Yes, the meat is intrinsically good, but wasn't this knowledge present in the believers who were eating the idol meat in the idol's temple? They thought that because the meat was intrinsically good, they could eat it anywhere, but Paul told them that they were getting in fellowship with demons, even though the meat was intrinsically good. God was not pleased with their eating of the meat in the temple, even though the meat was created by God and was intrinsically good, and they would suffer spiritual harm by eating it in the temple.

 

 

No, the issue was not just the location of their eating it. Nor was it just that God was not pleased. When they would eat in a worship context what has been sacrificed to an idol in a worship context, they come into fellowship with demons. The meat does not change from what it was prior to its being sacrificed. 

You've written a few sentences here that have me confused as to why you are writing them. You said "The meat does not change from what it was prior to its being sacrificed." Where did I say it might have changed? I didn't say that, so are you just making a comment that is unrelated to what I have said? You've sometimes done that, just using my comment as a jumping off point to make your own statement, but i wonder why you feel the need to make that statement right now, since I haven't disputed that.

You said,"No, the issue was not just the location of their eating it." I never said the problem was JUST the location, however, the location does seem to play a major role, doesn't it? Your third sentence seems to make that point when you specify twice the phrase "in a worship context." The worship context in those verses is specifically the idol's temple. If a believer eats meat in an idol's temple, they should know that such meat is being eaten in a worship context since it is in the idol's temple.

I need to make sure I understand why you are getting so specific with the phrase "in a worship context." In Acts 15:29 we read "You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols." This verse doesn't mention the "worship context." It just tells us that God is displeased when believers eat food offered to idols. Is it your position that God is "displeased" with idol meat eating, but the "fellowship with demons" does not take place unless such eating is done "in a worship context." To me, the knowledge itself that the meat has been offered is enough to place the eating "in a worship context," but the fact that you started your comment off with "No" means that you are disagreeing with my point in some way, but I can't figure out what the disagreement is, since you agree that eating meat "in a worship context" produces fellowship with demons.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

However, if a believer's neighbor brought a sacrifice to the temple, offered it to an idol, even ate of the meat themselves, then brought it home and served it to the visiting believer, that believer could eat of the meat without asking any questions and suffer no spiritual harm. God would certainly be displeased with the neighbor's sacrifice, and the neighbor would be under the influence of demons, but the believer would have a clear conscience. WHY? Because the believer would not have knowledge of the demon connection. This is why I said "The difference is in the knowledge of idolatry associated with the meat." It doesn't matter that the meat is intrinsically good if it causes demonic influence when eaten in the idol's temple. It doesn't matter if the neighbor is demonically influenced when producing the meal, since no spiritual harm comes to the believer if the believer doesn't know the meat has been offered to an idol. 

 

 

No, the passage does not teach that the neighbor who prepares it simply as food or eats it simply as food in his home comes into fellowship with demons. Nor does it teach that the meat in and of itself causes the demonic influence.

If you read my sentence again, you'll notice that I have the neighbor eating the meat right after he offers it in the temple, and then he brings it home. So if he eats it in the worship context of the temple, then he would be under demonic influence, wouldn't he? You corrected me earlier when I thought you had said a demonically influenced person could produce both acceptable and unacceptable things. Isn't it your position that a demonically influenced person cannot produce anything that is pleasing to God? This demonically influenced neighbor is serving meat that he purposely had offered to an idol, yet the believer can willingly eat it is spite of the fact that it had been offered to an idol. I know full well that meat "in and of itself" does not cause demonic influence, but eating it "in a worship context" does, and if the believer doesn't know that it had been offered, then that worship context doesn't exist for that believer.

 

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

If this principle applies to meat, in spite of any intrinsic or non-intrinsic factor, then I don't see why it wouldn't also apply to music, in spite of any intrinsic or non-intrinsic factors. Is music exempt from God's principles? The principle here is that God doesn't lay His displeasure down upon the believer if the believer doesn't know about any idolatrous/demonic connection.

 

 

You have not analyzed the passage correctly. The issue is not just God's displeasure, which is something in addition to the demonic influence. As I said before, you cannot legitimately claim the same thing for something that is intrinsically good that was created by God and something that is not intrinsically good and created by humans.

I still think this principle applies to music, since we can't really know the origin of any combination of musical elements. How can one say for sure that any particular combination originated with a human and not with God? Job 38 tells us that when the foundations of the earth were laid, the angels were singing together. We simply don't know what combinations they might have used or what combinations the fallen angels might have formed or what combinations might have been later created by humans. Certainly, some combinations have been used sinfully, but that sinful use does not give us knowledge that any particular music is "not intrinsically good,"

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

 

JD Miller wrote:

 

There is also zero biblical evidence that the golden calf music sounded anything like rock music.  

 

 

JD,

Today, I carefully skimmed everything that I have said in this thread in all 23 pages. I have not said anything that amounts to a claim that there is biblical evidence that the golden calf music sounded like rock music.

Apparently, you somehow have come to think that I hold this view and that I have asserted this notion--both of which are false.

What I have done is to analyze the music of the GCI based on the biblical data provided about its composite sound in comparison with other relevant Scripture, including Neh. 12.

Regardless of how you have come to hold this erroneous perspective about what I believe and have said, it is important that you correct your wrong understanding of what I believe and of what I have said.

So let me get this straight. There is no biblical evidence that the GCI music sounded like rock music. Yet there are characteristics of the "composite sound" of the GCI music that make it displeasing to God. Those same characteristics are present in rock music, but we shouldn't connect what you are saying about the GCI music to rock music because the GCI music didn't sound like rock music. Is that correct?

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

 

JD Miller wrote:

 

There is also zero biblical evidence that the golden calf music sounded anything like rock music.  

 

 

JD,

Today, I carefully skimmed everything that I have said in this thread in all 23 pages. I have not said anything that amounts to a claim that there is biblical evidence that the golden calf music sounded like rock music.

Apparently, you somehow have come to think that I hold this view and that I have asserted this notion--both of which are false.

What I have done is to analyze the music of the GCI based on the biblical data provided about its composite sound in comparison with other relevant Scripture, including Neh. 12.

Regardless of how you have come to hold this erroneous perspective about what I believe and have said, it is important that you correct your wrong understanding of what I believe and of what I have said.

 

So let me get this straight. There is no biblical evidence that the GCI music sounded like rock music. Yet there are characteristics of the "composite sound" of the GCI music that make it displeasing to God. Those same characteristics are present in rock music, but we shouldn't connect what you are saying about the GCI music to rock music because the GCI music didn't sound like rock music. Is that correct?

No, this is not correct! 

What I said is that I have not made any claims about biblical evidence that the GCI music sounded like rock music. The notion that I hold to similarities between the sounds of those musics based on biblical data about the GCI music has been erroneously inferred about me and erroneously attributed to me.

I have rejected and continue to reject categorically all attempts to determine musicologically what characteristics of demonically influenced music make it unacceptable to God because making such determinations is humanly impossible. We are limited to knowing that what makes all such musics ungodly is the demonic agency in the creation/production/playing, etc. of that music.

It is humanly impossible to determine with any certainty whether the same musicological characteristics were/are present in both the GCI music and rock music; therefore the following statement would be a gross misrepresentation of my views: "Those same characteristics are present in rock music."

As finite humans, we do not have any biblical, objective basis to establish definitively that the same musicological characteristics were/are present in both musics. Because of demons playing an essential role in the production of the GCI music and because of the evidence that rock music is demonically influenced music, there may be one or more similar musicological characteristics of those musics--but I have not and am not making any claims that there were/are such similar characteristics. In particular, I am not making any claims that the Bible provides definitive evidence of such similar musicological characteristics between the GCI music and rock music.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

I need to make sure I understand why you are getting so specific with the phrase "in a worship context." In Acts 15:29 we read "You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols." This verse doesn't mention the "worship context." It just tells us that God is displeased when believers eat food offered to idols. Is it your position that God is "displeased" with idol meat eating, but the "fellowship with demons" does not take place unless such eating is done "in a worship context." To me, the knowledge itself that the meat has been offered is enough to place the eating "in a worship context," but the fact that you started your comment off with "No" means that you are disagreeing with my point in some way, but I can't figure out what the disagreement is, since you agree that eating meat "in a worship context" produces fellowship with demons.

What's clear is that people come into fellowship with demons if they consume in a worship context what has been offered to an idol in a worship context. I do not believe that merely "the knowledge itself that the meat has been offered is enough to place the eating of it 'in a worship context'" in the setting of eating a meal in a person's home in a non-worship context of simply eating the meat as food.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

However, if a believer's neighbor brought a sacrifice to the temple, offered it to an idol, even ate of the meat themselves, then brought it home and served it to the visiting believer, that believer could eat of the meat without asking any questions and suffer no spiritual harm. God would certainly be displeased with the neighbor's sacrifice, and the neighbor would be under the influence of demons, but the believer would have a clear conscience. WHY? Because the believer would not have knowledge of the demon connection. This is why I said "The difference is in the knowledge of idolatry associated with the meat." It doesn't matter that the meat is intrinsically good if it causes demonic influence when eaten in the idol's temple. It doesn't matter if the neighbor is demonically influenced when producing the meal, since no spiritual harm comes to the believer if the believer doesn't know the meat has been offered to an idol. 

 

 

No, the passage does not teach that the neighbor who prepares it simply as food or eats it simply as food in his home comes into fellowship with demons. Nor does it teach that the meat in and of itself causes the demonic influence.

If you read my sentence again, you'll notice that I have the neighbor eating the meat right after he offers it in the temple, and then he brings it home. So if he eats it in the worship context of the temple, then he would be under demonic influence, wouldn't he? You corrected me earlier when I thought you had said a demonically influenced person could produce both acceptable and unacceptable things. Isn't it your position that a demonically influenced person cannot produce anything that is pleasing to God? This demonically influenced neighbor is serving meat that he purposely had offered to an idol, yet the believer can willingly eat it is spite of the fact that it had been offered to an idol. I know full well that meat "in and of itself" does not cause demonic influence, but eating it "in a worship context" does, and if the believer doesn't know that it had been offered, then that worship context doesn't exist for that believer.

As long as the believer's eating the meat is not eating it in a context where worship involving the meat is actually taking place in direct connection with the eating, there is no worship context to that person's eating the meat.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

If this principle applies to meat, in spite of any intrinsic or non-intrinsic factor, then I don't see why it wouldn't also apply to music, in spite of any intrinsic or non-intrinsic factors. Is music exempt from God's principles? The principle here is that God doesn't lay His displeasure down upon the believer if the believer doesn't know about any idolatrous/demonic connection.

 

 

You have not analyzed the passage correctly. The issue is not just God's displeasure, which is something in addition to the demonic influence. As I said before, you cannot legitimately claim the same thing for something that is intrinsically good that was created by God and something that is not intrinsically good and created by humans.

 

I still think this principle applies to music, since we can't really know the origin of any combination of musical elements. How can one say for sure that any particular combination originated with a human and not with God? Job 38 tells us that when the foundations of the earth were laid, the angels were singing together. We simply don't know what combinations they might have used or what combinations the fallen angels might have formed or what combinations might have been later created by humans. Certainly, some combinations have been used sinfully, but that sinful use does not give us knowledge that any particular music is "not intrinsically good,"

When demons control humans in a worship context, they are going to direct the humans to use things in the worship that are things that are not acceptable to God. They are not going to control the humans to use things that are acceptable to God.

We can know with certainty that demonically influenced music is music that is itself unacceptable to God. 

JD Miller's picture

Rajesh, in my last post I agreed with you.  Then I made an additional comment to clarify my position,  It also served to point out where I believed an earlier poster had gone too far in his statement.  If you agreed with my additional comment, then all you had to do was to say so.  Instead you went on the defensive.  If you disagreed with my additional comment then all you had to do was state why.  Instead you accused me of accusing you of something I had not stated that you had said.  When you are so quick to go on the defensive, it is difficult for people to understand where you are coming from and it makes your position much more confusing.  Our goal as we sharpen iron should be to help one another, not to attack when there is no reason to battle.

Here is the post I referenced:

Rajesh, I actually agree with this statement of yours

There is zero biblical evidence that the divinely approved ancient Hebrew music spoken of in those Psalms sounded anything like rock music. 

There is also zero biblical evidence that the golden calf music sounded anything like rock music.  

Interestingly, my agreement with you was a disagreement with Bert and my hope is that my additional statement helped him to reflect on his statement a bit more. Bert and I have both agreed and disagreed through the years and in doing so, we have sharpened each others iron.

Bert Perry's picture

Rajesh, if you're going to argue, as you seem to be doing, that rock music in worship leads to demon possession, you're going to have to seriously up your arguments, both Biblically and quite frankly in terms of contemporary evidence.  Biblically speaking, we know that some people do get inhabited by demons, but it is not entirely clear whether a believer can be possessed.  The Holy Spirit is going to "move out" to make room for a demon, or share His apartment with a demon, exactly why?  There is a big soteriological argument against your very premiss.  It is also worth noting that there is not one iota of evidence that unworthy music styles lead to demon possession in Scripture.  For that matter, apart from perhaps Saul and Nebuchadnezzar, we don't know anything about how any of the demon possessed came to be so afflicted.    So inferring that rock & roll is related to demons based on some stupid things a few artists have said--and ignoring stupid things said by artists of other genre--just shows a lack of seriousness in study.  

Never mind that most fundagelical believers these days do happen to be using music that at least would qualify as "light rock" or "easy listening", and the signs of any actual demon possession are scant to nonexistent.  Certainly they are less than, say, we'd have observed at a hymns-only church like First Baptist of Hammond a few years back.

For my part, it's my hope that the movement that seeks to brand musical genre as unacceptable because of guilt by association fallacies (e.g. Garlock, Rajesh) dies a quick, but extremely painful death, so that churches have a vivid reason not to repeat the experiment.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Pages